|
A woman just said she drives on 8 Malibu and Cokes to save £4 on a taxi. Unbelivable.
|
Quite frankly makes the case for a policeman for every pub carpark. That is a scary attitude people have.
I dont drink so it never comes up for me, but as a teen I drove after two bottles of Smirnoff and felt unsafe despite making a 25 mile journey home without a scratch - never did it againa nd gave up alcohol not long after.
|
As some of the regulars on here will know I do tend to drink a lot of beers on a saturday night, 8 pints is not unusual, I don't get stupidly drunk I am usualy out for a good 6-7 hours. However next day I won't drive till at least 6pm the next day and I will avoid it at all if I had more than 7 or 8 (which is rare).
I don't get how people can even think about driving and drinking. I had a scare when I was learning, I had been out on the saturday only had about 5 pints, next morning (about 11.30) I was driving with my mate in the passanger seat, I had to go down this steep bend and I really felt my co-ordination was not what it should have been. I am sure I wasn't over the limit but I did feel alchohol was still in my system and it taught me a lesson.
My generation (mid twenties) seem to be very good at not drink driving, but a lot of teenagers and older people stlll do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Well I stand corrected. Lady who drank 8 malibu and cokes was under the limit (she blew 4 micrograms).
|
|
She was drunk but didn't fail the test - but did they make sure she blow properly? I doubt it.
|
I watched this programme too. I can't believe she only blew 4Mg!
|
|
If I drank what she did, I'd blow more than the limit the next morning!
|
|
I don't want to ruin the illusion, but this is television, and these people are usually saying what is on the storyboard. This sort of 'reality TV' dumbed down documentary is the worst for it.
|
|
|
|
I think mailbu is quite a weak drink compared to other spirits - around 21% compared to 35%-40% for most other spirits, which is why her reading was probably lower than expected. If she drank 8 vodkas, I'd expect her to be closer to the limit
|
|
|
|
|
|
People are admitting to drink driving!
There are some on this forum who also believe that, due to their superior driving skills, they too can be drunk over the limit and yet drive quite safely.
Edited by jbif on 17/12/2008 at 23:24
|
"superior driving skills"
Drinking skills, dear boy, drinking skills :-)
|
If it genuinely is true that 25% of the British public admit to having drunk-driven at some stage, I think it is high time we built a huge off-shore prison, employed all the hundreds of thousands of redundant workers as police officers and clamp down on the lot of them. Two years inside, no excuses.
It really isn't good enough -- you do see drunk drivers on a Friday and Saturday night on any rural road you care to mention. If ever there was a group worthy of persecution it is these morons.
The frightening part of that programme was the level of drunkenness required to be over the limit -- surely now is the time for a zero limit, as is the case in several countries? That would get rid of any ambiguity.
|
This may seem an odd question but does Ireland have a zero drink limit? I think a zero drink limit is not practical in the UK as we are a nation of drunks. However the current level is too high and there should be a law against just drinking then getting into the car. My worry is next day you may have a tiny but of alchohol in your system (much less than the legal limit) but if its 0% you would get banned.
Now how many of us have taken head ache tablets which say may affect your driving and still drove? How many of us have driven when feeling only slightly sleepy? The problem with zero tolerences is you can go too far, and that is why I think the government have been relecuent to make it 0.
Also drinking is a funny thing, I could have 2 pints and look and seem completly sober but would be just under the limit most likely. I would feel in control of myself but I would not trust myself to drive a car after two pints, if there was no incidents I could drive home with no problems, but the problem is there is always incidents on the roads and that is when drunk drivers end up crashing, unless they are so drunk they can barely control the car.
I would imagine most drunk drivers are the former, the people who no not obviously look drunk but have an accident, get breathilised and are found to be over the limit.
Also out of interest what if you passed the breath test but the police felt the alchohol contributed to the accident even if it was in legal limits would that person get away with it? I suppose they could do them for dangerious driving or something instead.
|
The EU states that have implemented the 0% rule are mostly East European -- nations of drunks just like the UK. A 0% limit would, in my view, mean that (a) people would be less inclined to risk one or two, and (b) the police would, ironically, have greater powers of discretion -- many drivers will be just under with the current laws but still a danger, and police would have the power to be able to let certain folks go with a caution, but get the ones that were dangerous but borderline.
My personal limit has been 0% since I passed the test, and I will not waver from that. I do not drink at all during the week, and if I do drink on a Friday or Saturday I will not go near the car until mid-afternoon the following day. I have earned respect among my peers for my stand, and frankly don't see why others should be allowed to wing it.
As for being sleepy, you're right it is an issue, and it's a difficult question to answer.
|
When talking about lowering the D/D limits in line with Europe it should be remembered that while the limits are lower, so is the punishment.
Many countries just give you a fixed penalty (50 euros ish) for being found to be driving over the limit, but not too over the limit. France has only recently brought in a driving ban for more severe cases.
It would be interesting to see a full list of the punishments that are served up in other places.
|
|
|
Jase, I would be curious to know what steps you take to be able to know for certain that when you drive after the night before that you are an absolute 0%, not a hint or drop of alcohol still in your system? Even in the middle of the afternoon unless you only had two shandies the night before?
This is why I feel the 0% is not practical. If police pulled every car driver over in the morning how many would have traces of alcohol in their system? But how many would be perfectly capable of driving?
Would be interesting to see statistics, if any exist, of the number of accidents involving people with alcohol in their system, but below the limit, where the alcohol was deemed to be a factor?
|
|
|
many drivers will be just under with the current laws but still a danger and police would have the power to be able to let certain folks go with a caution but get the ones that were dangerous but borderline.
The police can already deal with such people. You do not have to be over the drink-drive limit to be prosecuted for driving "under the influence".
|
|
|
|
Now how many of us have taken head ache tablets which say may affect your driving and still drove? How many of us have driven when feeling only slightly sleepy? The problem with zero tolerences is you can go too far and that is why I think the government have been relecuent to make it 0.
Exactly. Obviously driving while drunk is foolish and dangerous, and it is worrying that some people don't realise that even a small amount of alcohol, within the legal limit, still affects you. But how much does a small amount affect you? (e.g. the one glass of wine over the last two hours with dinner, or the residual effects the following morning of 3 pints the night before). Probably no more than tiredness, stress, some medications, or any of the other distractions that fill our driving lives whether we like it or not. And are these people really the ones causing the accidents?
A zero limit is utterly disproportionate and unnecessary. It's normally called for by people who would like to see that, if you go out for the evening say, the person doing the driving is not allowed to drink at all. While I can understand that point of view (although I think it is more extreme than necessary) the problem is that that desire is not precisely the same thing as a zero limit. As with so many ill-conceived ideas these days, for far too many people, the fact that it achieves the primary objective is enough to completely ignore and not even consider that there may be other, unintended consequences.
|
|
|
|
If it genuinely is true that 25% of the British public admit to having drunk-driven at some stage [..] Two years inside no excuses.
Same for people who use their 'phones (any sort) when driving. Good.
The frightening part of that programme was the level of drunkenness required to be over the limit -- surely now is the time for a zero limit as is the case in several countries?
Do any countries have a 0 limit?
In any case, there's nothing wrong with the limit here - it's the people who drive when well over it that're the problem.
That would get rid of any ambiguity.
There is no ambiguity.
|
Do any countries have a 0 limit?
Croatia does. I often drive there, and am slightly concerned about getting in the car after an evening with my excitable in-laws. I usually ask the more-inclined-to-moderation-than-I Mrs A to get behind the wheel.
|
>> Do any countries have a 0 limit?
the island of sark is 0%....no cars allowed
|
>> >> Do any countries have a 0 limit? the island of sark is 0%....no cars allowed
It could also says that Sark has a limit of 100%. You can be as drunk as you like, but you can't be done for drink-driving
|
>> >> >> Do any countries have a 0 limit? >> >> the island of sark is 0%....no cars allowed It could also says that Sark has a limit of 100%. You can be as drunk as you like but you can't be done for drink-driving
not so, you can still be done for drink driving on sark if you are three sheets to the wind and in charge of a tractor
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There are some on this forum who also believe that, due to their superior driving skills, they too can be drunk over the limit and yet drive quite safely."
The problem is really that alcohol distorts the sense of reality so that when intoxicated, some people believe they can drive safely.
It is very hard to legislate against this.
Even more frightening is the driver intoxicated on other drugs. This could be a young person, high on cannabis but equally it could be a middle-aged lady, with decent moral standards, who does not realise that the extra Codeine she has taken, because her arthritis is bad that day, will seriously impair her driving skills. The Police have no simple method to test for these other drugs at the roadside.
|
|
Regarding a 0% alcohol limit, I believe that normal metabolism can produce small amounts of Ethanol even in someone who has taken no alcohol. This makes such a level impossible to police.
|
Regarding a 0% alcohol limit I .... This makes such a level impossible to police. >>
In reply to doctorchris:
The common misunderstanding is that if a limit is set at 0%, then that is what you have to test for. Not at all.
If you pass a law that it is illegal to drink and drive, then to police it all you need to do is allow for a margin of error in testing plus an allowance for normal natural alcohol reading variations in the average population. So if that figure means that a sober average "British Standard" UK citizen is likely to blow say 10 micrograms (mcg) of alcohol per 100ml of breath, or say 20 milligrams (mg) of alcohol per 100ml of blood, then you set the test limit to those figures. If someone does fail that test, then it is open to them to show that the limit was exceeded not due to intake of drink, but some other innocent reason that they can prove to the plod or CPS or to the Court if it gets that far.
As for testing for other drugs, progress is being made to facilitate faster on the spot testing.
See tinyurl.com/4u2g65
Edited by jbif on 18/12/2008 at 09:44
|
The common misunderstanding is that if a limit is set at 0% then that is what you have to test for. Not at all.
It's a common comment but it's not a misunderstanding at all. If the legal limit is zero then quite simply anyone over zero is the wrong side of the law. That's how the law works.
The common mistake is to desire that drivers are much more cautious about how much they drink, perhaps to the extent of not drinking at all when they plan to drive that day or maybe the next morning, and to believe that that desire is synonymous with a zero limit.
If you pass a law that it is illegal to drink and drive
"illegal to drink and drive" and "zero alcohol limit" are different words. The law is a precise beast and if the words change so, probably, does the meaning.
... average "British Standard" UK citizen is likely to blow say 10 micrograms (mcg) of alcohol per 100ml of breath or say 20 milligrams (mg) of alcohol per 100ml of blood then you set the test limit to those figures.
Well that's not a 0% limit. That's a 20mg per 100ml limit, with (according to your other comments) the possibility of being allowed to be over that limit if you can demonstrate it's not due to intake of drink. That's fine. A law like that could be passed. But it would be a mistake to call it a "zero limit".
Edited by GJD on 18/12/2008 at 22:57
|
If the legal limit is zero then quite simply anyone over zero is the wrong side of the law. That's how the law works.>>
So people would stand the risk of a criminal record through no fault of their own (i.e. natural causes) - the law is normally not that much of an ass.
|
|
|
|
|
I often wonder if its really true that we are a nation of drunks and much worse than other countries... from what I've seen (and the stats seem to back it up) we don't, as a nation, drink much different to other European countres and less than some... what seems to be the differerence is that for some people who live here they believe that our culture is to drink as much as possible in the shortest time and then throw up and behave badly... despite "reallity" TV trying to show the contrary I believe that the majority are actually resposible drinkers... but the don't make good TV or newspaper headlines, do they?
|
Necking 3-4 pints on strong lager in the shortest possible time (either happy hour or just before closing time at 11pm) is part of the problem.
Extend licensing hours, and what do you get?
The same folk necking 3-4 pints on strong lager in the shortest possible time , just before closing time at 3am. Unless they've fallen over before that.
Some people will just keep going until they are ill/run out of money.
Other won't.
Put that into a motoring context, and from my (bitter) experience, the later they arrest the drunk driver, the more bladdered he will be.
It is not a case of 'I've had sufficient' or 'No thanks, i'm driving'... it is a case of 'Pour another one - i'll take my chances'.
|
|
|
b308. I think the majority are seldom featured, whether it is the responsible youth, single parent, drinker or driver. It is, however, the minority that cost the majority the most in every way.
www.youtube.com/londonambulance
|
|
|
|
The problem is really that alcohol distorts the sense of reality so that when intoxicated some people believe they can drive safely.
On the other hand, there are some people who don't need any alcohol at all to come to that belief only for it to be mistaken. They're just dangerous, incompetent idiots. And others who are at least aware that 3 pints has a noticeable effect and if forced to drive would do so very carefully. I've known people in both categories.
Neither is to be commended, but if I was somehow hypothetically forced to choose one of them to drive me around, of have one of them drive through town where my friends and family might be the accident victims, I wouldn't necessarily choose the sober one.
Of course, the difference is that the drunk, careful driver need only take one simple step to become a sober, careful driver. Curing the idiot is somewhat harder. But that doesn't mean we should forget about the danger they pose.
The Police have no simple method to test for these other drugs at the roadside.
Nor for general idiocy.
|
|
Talking about idiots (although I don't think it is a strong enough word), one of the drivers on last night's show commented on the wrecked Toyota "I drive on the M1 every day and see worse". Tell that to the Peake family in person then.
|
I could not believe how he responded to that terrible wreck. The others responded more like you'd expect.
Not sure how scripted this was but it certainly was an eye opener and will have made many people think.
|
Some people suffer from an ability to relate normally. Autism?
Judging by some well known politicians's alleged behaviour, it's quite common.
They genuinely feel nothing for others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's amazing how dumb some people can be to obtain their 15 minutes of fame (and probably some free alcohol). Admitting in full view of a camera that you drink and drive on a regular basis is pretty damn thick to be honest...
|
0% is hard to enforce as the body can generate alcohol naturally .
In any event the great majority of drunk drivers are way over the limit .Which suggest not that they misjudged, but that they ignore it. So they would ignore the 0% also.
|
As for the driver who said saw worse daily- if scripted was in poor taste and senseless, if genuine needs his license taken away for good. How anyone can fail to see their drinking is more likely to result in a collision is beyond belief. Just hope he doesn't wipe someone else out with his selfishness.
Edited by Pugugly on 18/12/2008 at 21:54
|
|
I doubt whether it was scripted - I'm glad they left it in. Arrogance beyond belief.
|
|
|
|
Apologies Rob, please remove the comment.
|
|
The "other" Rob pulled it !
|
Limit in Ireland(southern) is similar to the UK or a little bit higher I think.
Since the introduction of random breath testing the figures for dwea have dropped.
The weekend binge drinkers are the worst imo.....very similar to the uk from what I see on tv anyway.
Agree with posters who would like to see "you booze, no cruise".
Still have heard some strange stories about teetotallers being over the limit from various mouthwashes, deodrants etc.
|
GJD said : >> It's a common comment but it's not a misunderstanding at all. If the legal limit is zero then quite simply anyone over zero is the wrong side of the law. That's how the law works. >>
In reply to GJD and his rigid application of "how the law works", I have only this to say:
Have you never heard of the "Guidelines" in applying a Law. For example, let me refer you to speed limits. APCO guidelines allegedly say "ACPO guidelines say not to prosecute below speed limit + 10% + 2mph".
M'lud, I rest my case. Goodnight.
|
|
I found the "bar" thing curious - very low readings - I suspect that they were flawed in some way. 4 Mg from 8 Malbus and Cokes - I get that much from a Wine Gum.
|
Malibu is only 20% ish alcohol IIRC - not that I'd touch the stuff. Depends on the measures. If they were spirit measures then it's the equivalent of 4 singles - 4 of whatever they are is still very low though!
|
|
|
|
|
